I must admit that I have trouble picturing either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump leading an army. Either one of them at the head of a howling mob, certainly, but an army? Nope.
But that's beside the point and last night, service members had a chance to ask them both some questions. Early polling is mixed but it appears Mr. Trump did a little better at it.
A larger story -- and a pity that it is -- is NBC's unusual choice to put fuzzy-warm morning show host Matt Lauer in the moderator's* seat. The network has no shortage of wonks -- Chuck Todd, who gives every sign of living, breathing and probably bathing with Washington and world politics is oen and the network's long-time political reporter Andrea Mitchell is another. Neither is without biases (and Mr. Trump is anything but a media darling) but they are professionals. Mr. Lauer, and whoever prepped him for the gig, did not impress. From "softball" questions to Mr. Trump to an extended (and apparently rambling) discussion of Ms. Clinton's e-mail mess, it was reportedly a suboptimal performance.
I'd tell you first-hand, but I didn't watch. Bombastic and snide or evasive and snide? This is supposedly the choice? Both contenders look to me to have anger-management problems; and this is the best their parties can find.
Still voting for Mr. Johnson. Maybe he can't win but he's still the only one running I can vote for without gagging. If "shaddup and choke it down" is the flavor of the day, count me out.
* Since it wasn't really a debate, is the position that or a moderator, or what? This is quite aside from the ability of the selected talking head to actually fulfill the duties thereof, whatever they were supposed to be.
8 months ago